Supported to perform: sports bras and breast volume do not impair cycling performance in females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Despite the importance of sports bras for comfort during exercise in people with breasts, concerns persist regarding their potential effects on athletic performance. Discrepancies in previous studies necessitate a closer examination of the interaction between sports bras, breast volume, exertional symptoms, and exercise performance. Methods Twenty-three recreationally-active, normal bodyweight females completed three 10-km time-trials on a cycle ergometer on three separate occasions in a randomized order, while wearing a professionally fitted high-support sports bra, a professionally fitted low-support sports bralette, or a personal, self-selected sports bra. Performance was quantified as the time to complete the 10-km distance. Cardiorespiratory and symptom responses were measured throughout. Results Participants were grouped by their estimated breast volumes (small: mean ± SD 284 ± 38 ml, median bra size: 32C; large: 560 ± 97 ml, 34DD; p = 0.002, g = 3.84). The average time-trial duration was 23.1 ± 3.1 min and comparable across breast volume groups and sports bra conditions (between-group: p = 0.794, ηp2 < 0.01; between-bras: p = 0.273, ηp2 < 0.01). Notably, larger-breasted participants experienced stronger symptoms of chest tightness (p = 0.042, ηp2 = 0.18), which were associated with their ratings of perceived exertion and breathlessness (intensity and unpleasantness). Irrespective of breast volume, the high-support sports bra also evoked stronger symptoms of chest tightness (p = 0.039, ηp2 = 0.15). Discussion Stronger symptoms of chest tightness associated with larger breast volumes or high-support sports bras do not impede performance during self-paced non-weight-bearing exercise in recreationally-active females.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".